Early admission is pretty much for 1. very rich kids 2. athletes 3. legacy kids 4. kids of professors 5. maybe 50-100 legit & highly distinguished people

BS,

There is a 6th group - those that come across as independent positive self-motivated thinkers. Kids from families that have nothing but negative comments make the job of the admissions department easy.

Welcome to the slaughter that is Stanford admissions. They are not alone in this practice (see: Ivy League admissions).

It's one of many fine universities, but in a suburban setting in a not very interesting place for college age students. San Francisco, the beach, etc are too far away to have much influence. I don't understand why Palo Alto parents don't encourage their children to go to another city or state to experience life outside "the bubble". Going away to an interesting city was the best decision I made.

To BS--Why is early admission for "the rich"? Anyone can apply early--it doesn't cost more. Athlete recruiting is distinct from early admission. Legacy kids will always be considered as such at any school, and by far the vast majority of legacies are denied admission. Face it--getting into a "top" school is just really hard.

BS--Did it occur to you that children of Stanford alumni and Stanford professors may be raised in a family environment that encourages and emphasizes the importance of education?

Who decided the University of Virginia belonged in this article??

Can someone please explain... how does early admission favor the wealthy? Any more background on why (Harvard, Princeton) dropped early admission?

This criticism isn't fair.

My sister was admitted into Stanford via an early action application. She is a legacy student, isn't related to anyone at the university, and we are definitely not from an affluent or wealthy family.

My sister earned admission the old fashioned way. She studied hard and distinguished herself as a great student and person. We come from a family of migrant workers (without air conditioning or a heater in our home -- let alone a computer or encyclopedia). Yet we learned to work around any "handicap" by doing what we could with what we had.

This strong academic work ethic and a belief in doing what we could to help others helped to make my sister shine. As a result, she was admitted to 14 of the 15 schools that she applied to (including four in the Ivy League).

If you or your child would like admission into a top school like Stanford, I suggest that they do something to distinguish themselves as a good student and a good human being. Schools like Stanford aren't concerned as much with money as they are with someone who will reflect the spirit of the institution itself.

The thing that is missing here is that no matter how good Palo Alto students are or how many of them apply to Stanford, Stanford will not accept more than a handful from either Gunn or Paly. It is the same with the UCs. Of these handful that are accepted, not all will take the acceptance as they may prefer one of their other acceptances.

The difference with applying for early acceptance, is that you must accept the place rather than turn it down. Therefore, many Palo Alto students choose not to take this route as they cannot early apply to multiple colleges.

Is no one except for me dumbfounded that these admissions are for 2014???

Ooops! I get it; graduating 2014. Sorry for the interruption.

BS speaks the truth. Undergraduate admissions to "prestigious" schools have been a joke for a long time, the latest development being that students are now also deemed more worthy for admission if they are more able to pay their way through all four years (Web Link I am not refuting the fact that "top" universities accept some very talented and hard working students, but many many average students gain admission by way of special preference.

Being a distinguished student is not enough, but being a distinguished student and a legacy or a minority is plenty. All three and you are a sure thing. Such is the two-faced world of higher education.

Don't be so naive to think that universities (more specifically admissions offices) are immune to money, requests from a fellow loyal faculty member, or the ever-present pressure to uphold the politically correct pillar of diversity.

Prestigious California schools don't want our children unless they have perfect SAT's, GPA's, come from disadvantaged backgrounds or who are stellar, nationally ranked athletes. That's the dirty secret for all of us who have mortgaged our lives away to live in Palo Alto and have kids who are average students.

Most reputable, credible and sought after schools anywhere in the US try to achieve a diverse class by mixing socio-economics, ethnicity, geography and talents. So if you happen to have a student who is god forbid average,(3.5 GPA, a couple of AP's, and not especially talented in music, arts, or athletics), your best bet is get them to consider schools outside the east and west coast, who happen to love and embrace kids from Palo Alto. Quit lusting after the Ivy's, or so-called Ivy's. It is a waste of your time and money and only destined to give you grief. There are a lot of fabulous schools that will give students of all walks a chance to bloom and prosper. That's what you should be looking for: schools that embrace and encourage your particular student -- not ones that assign a number.

And UC admission are going to get much tougher now with the budget crunch - the schools will be giving preference to out of state applicants because they pay higher non-resident tuition.

Early decision favors the wealthy because in a binding decision process, the accepted student must attend the early admitting school. This means s/he has no power to bargain for a better financial package.

(Correction to my earlier post)

----

This criticism isn't fair.

My sister was admitted into Stanford via an early action application. She is NOT a legacy student, isn't related to anyone at the university, and we are definitely not from an affluent or wealthy family.

My sister earned admission the old fashioned way. She studied hard and distinguished herself as a great student and person. We come from a family of migrant workers (without air conditioning or a heater in our home -- let alone a computer or encyclopedia). Yet we learned to work around any "handicap" by doing what we could with what we had.

This strong academic work ethic and a belief in doing what we could to help others helped to make my sister shine. As a result, she was admitted to 14 of the 15 schools that she applied to (including four in the Ivy League).

If you or your child would like admission into a top school like Stanford, I suggest that they do something to distinguish themselves as a good student and a good human being. Schools like Stanford aren't concerned as much with money as they are with someone who will reflect the spirit of the institution itself.

----

*Additional comments...

My sister worked hard to get into a great school. Even with all of the limits that we encountered growing up, she graduated near the top of her class. In fact, she took college courses while in high school (in addition to her AP classes) and actually obtained an Associates degree in Electrical Engineering even BEFORE she graduated from high school.

My husband and I encouraged her to aim at admission into a top school...because we knew that she had what it takes to get in. We are from Texas, but we didn't limit ourselves to schools in Texas (even though there are some great schools there). She is now a sophomore at Stanford and doing extremely well.

I realize that students from Palo Alto might have a difficult time in regard to class rank (due to an abundance of good students). However, rank is only one thing that admissions counselors consider. I would encourage your children to distinguish themselves in their GPAs, course selection and extracurricular activities.

Mireya -

Your sister should be very proud, as should you and your husband. It sounds like you were a great support for her!

BTW - Palo Alto students don't have a class rank, just a percentile (if they are in the top 10%, etc.) 40% of the Paly graduating class last year had better then a 3.57 GPA unweighted.

Having worked in Stanford admissions for a few years, I can assure you that a disproportionate number of admits come from families that are rich or connected (ie parent is an exec in a major organization, holds a key public office, serves on a Stanford board). Being a legacy helps too, as undergrad admissions readily acknowledges. Gunn and Paly have traditionally been top feeder schools to Stanford, so Palo Alto parents have no reason to complain.

"Legacies a fifth of the Class of 2013" by Alex Yu (sorry no web link at hand, just a torn out article), recent Stanford Daily article.

"Early decision favors the wealthy because in a binding decision process, the accepted student must attend the early admitting school. This means s/he has no power to bargain for a better financial package."

Stanford's early decision is NOT binding.

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Mireya,

Congratulations to your sister, but being the child of migrant workers and, from the sounds of it, a member of a disadvantaged minority put her in a different situation than kids who don't have that kind of distinctive background. I'm not saying she didn't earn her place--but it's also true that colleges do look for kids who come from groups who aren't the same-old, same-old.

I know a kid with 9 APs, perfect grades and nearly perfect SATs who just got a deferral on his chosen Ivy. Good extracurriculars too.

However, there's no money in his family--and with the money crunch the schools are facing, it is easier to get in by early decision if it looks like you come from money--coming from a private school helps more than it did even a couple of years ago.

Paly and Gunn do send a higher number of kids to Stanford than other Bay Area schools, but they also have a lot of faculty kids, legacy kids and very rich kids. Legacy, from what I can see, isn't worth that much, but being a faculty kid is a definite boost.

Or let me put it this way--Berkeley admits have the highest average GPA of any of the top schools. The private schools are doing far more than just looking at grades and test scores.

Admin,

There's no affirmative action requirement at Stanford. The school does, obviously, consider things besides grades and test scores.

Admissions officer never worked at Stanford. Admin clearly has no idea how graduate programs work. They are just trying to stir the pot with falsehoods about Stanford admissions

There is no "affirmative action" per se, but anyone who pretends that diversity is not a consideration has been brainwashed by the PC crowd.

Pretty sweeping statement, Falsehoods! And your proof is...?

The hardest demographic to get into a good college - white middle class male.

I would argue that the Asian demographic has it just as hard if not harder than the Caucasian body. While schools might try to maintain a diverse student population, but no private school wants their campus dominated by a minority (no facts here, just my opinion).

Why are a majority of the students at the top public schools Asian, while privates are able to maintain about a 10% Asian student-body?

I have been through and observed the process. College admissions are a laughable process and, at times, a disgraceful practice for "top" universities that are supposedly the pillars of progressive thinking.

Falsehoods, you speaking without evidence. I worked in the records area of a competitive graduate program at Stanford. Let me ask this: if you were an admissions officer and all the top applicants were of the same ethnicity, it is only PC to accept some minorities too and if their applications are not as strong as others, one has no choice but to still accept them into the program or the entire program would be filled with Caucasians and Asians. Asians do not count as minorities, FYI, because they are overrepresented in academics. No one but the office knows the grades of the students and the majority keep the highest GPAs.